> Veterans of the military and the airmail service still insisted they could fly "by the seat of the pants," and they thought less of those who could not. Their self-deception now seems all the more profound because the solution to the problem of flying in clouds and darkness -- a gyroscope adapted to flying -- was already widely available.
Reminds me quite a bit of programmers who insist that any formal developments process (including lightweight agile ones) is a crutch needed only by mediocre developers (which they of course don't need) and invented by companies who can't hire only the best (where they of course would never work).
Why in the world would it remind you of that? A development process is just a way to improve collaboration over basic informal communication. Without gyroscopes you are literally incapable of sensing your orientation. It would be like being unable to see anyone else's code.
When you say "formal" you are being a bit vague. Perhaps you can be more specific about which techniques you found to have a measurable difference? Is "light agile" the new thing?
His book _The Outlaw Sea_ was extremely good -- going into some depth about the ways that government try but have not succeeded in regulating the ocean in the ways that they control law on land.
He's a great writer especially on aviation. For example, his writeup of the mid-air collision of an Embraer regional jet and a 737 over Brazil (http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/air_crash200901) was nothing short of fantastic. It's well worth a read.
I guess it's aviation week on HN? There's also test pilot Tex Johnston's famous 707 barrel roll - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vHiYA6Dmws - but unfortunately the video quality is poor.
If he had dangled the pen from a string, it would have hung at a ninety-degree angle with respect to the tilted floor.
For enormous fun, dangle your earbuds from their cables during the large maneuvers during take-off and landing. The wires seem to have a life all their own. People around you will stare, mesmerized. For some reason you really seem to want that wire dangling to match what you see outside.
The whole point is that the earbuds won't seem to have a life all their own. They'll continue to point straight to the floor of the plane, no matter what the wings are doing relative to the earth out the window.
[+] [-] brazzy|13 years ago|reply
Reminds me quite a bit of programmers who insist that any formal developments process (including lightweight agile ones) is a crutch needed only by mediocre developers (which they of course don't need) and invented by companies who can't hire only the best (where they of course would never work).
[+] [-] Dylan16807|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melling|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ggchappell|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lizzard|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sootzoo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ErikAugust|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ggchappell|13 years ago|reply
BTW, the relevant scene starts at 2:08.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZBcapxGHjE&t=2m8s
[+] [-] kens|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noonespecial|13 years ago|reply
For enormous fun, dangle your earbuds from their cables during the large maneuvers during take-off and landing. The wires seem to have a life all their own. People around you will stare, mesmerized. For some reason you really seem to want that wire dangling to match what you see outside.
[+] [-] brianberns|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zwass|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rosser|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] js2|13 years ago|reply
Also, apparently previously discussed - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1503860
[+] [-] TrevorJ|13 years ago|reply